To paraphrase the author John O’Farrell, those in charge of society have always shown imagination in thinking of reasons why relatively poor people should work harder for less. So there is neat symmetry in the SRA’s decision to flag the likely abolition of the minimum trainee salary in the same month that a 22-year-old graduate launched a legal challenge over being obliged to do forced labour or lose benefits.

The uncomfortable truth though is that the SRA’s reasoning appears sound. There is no credible regulatory justification for retaining the 30-year-old policy - unless, if we might be facetious for a moment, you admit the possibility that having to sleep in a cardboard box might affect the quality of a trainee’s work. (In reality, of course, trainees will still be eligible for the minimum wage.)

The policy was designed to protect trainees from being exploited and encourage a high calibre of graduates to enter the profession. But in the present environment of ample supply, the latter imperative has ceased to be relevant. And in respect of exploitation, any number of other professions and trades don’t set minimum trainee pay rates, so why are lawyers special?

The best argument in favour of retention seems to be that of fostering diversity – the regulator having admitted it is ‘not clear’ whether the policy has improved access to the profession. Before any decision is taken, perhaps some proper research is required to find out.